10 Dec 2021
A self-petition presented when the debtor does not intend to seek a bankruptcy order and is used solely to obtain a moratorium or to negotiate with creditors is an abuse of process; such petitions will be dismissed and adjournments will not be granted simply to enable negotiation, with Official Receiver costs payable from the deposit.
10 Dec 2021
A self-petition presented without a genuine intention to seek a bankruptcy order and used to suspend repayment obligations or to negotiate with creditors constitutes an abuse of process; such petitions will be dismissed (including for want of prosecution where hearings are not attended) and Official Receiver costs are to be met from the deposit.
10 Dec 2021
A self-petition filed by a debtor who does not genuinely intend to seek a bankruptcy order but uses the petition to obtain a moratorium or to negotiate with creditors is an abuse of process; such petitions will be dismissed and the Official Receiver's costs may be deducted from the deposit paid by the debtor.
19 Jul 2018
Provisional liquidators were appointed because the Company admitted insolvency and the debt to BOC was undisputed (satisfying the threshold), and there was cogent evidence of irregularities and a real risk of dissipation such that independent investigation and asset preservation were necessary (satisfying the discretionary limb); the appointment was ordered without conferring powers to pursue debt restructuring at this stage.
31 Oct 2016
Contributories failed to produce any firm, signable restructuring proposal after lengthy adjournments; continuation of provisional liquidation was no longer appropriate; therefore winding-up orders were made for each of the five companies and the provisional liquidators were ordered to continue in office.
31 Oct 2016
Contributories failed to present a concrete, signable restructuring agreement after prolonged adjournments and the provisional liquidation jurisdiction had been used to delay enforcement; accordingly the court made winding-up orders for the five companies and ordered the provisional liquidators to continue in office.
18 Apr 2000
The court applied the rights-based test for class constitution: where legal rights are not dissimilar and no confiscation or injustice results, internal creditors may vote as part of the same class; disputed claims may be valued at zero for voting if that valuation was arrived at in good faith following review; given substantial independent creditor support and absence of unfair prejudice, the court will exercise its discretion to sanction the schemes (subject to conditions).
18 Apr 2000
Applying the rights test, the court found no dissimilarity of legal rights sufficient to require separate classes; the inclusion of internal creditors did not produce confiscation or injustice; independent creditors showed substantial support and disclosure and procedural irregularities were not such as to vitiate the meetings; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to sanction all 25 schemes, subject to the stated condition precedent.
18 Apr 2000
The court applied the rights test for class determination, concluded internal creditors’ votes did not render meetings unrepresentative or produce confiscation or injustice, found disputed claims valued at HK$0 were reasonably assessed and did not bar exclusion from voting, waived technical irregularities, and exercised its discretion to sanction the 25 Schemes as fair and just, conditional on Stock Exchange approval by the stated date.
18 Apr 2000
The court applied the rights-based test for class composition, found no confiscation or injustice from including internal creditors or from valuing disputed claims at zero where valuation was made in good faith, concluded that independent creditor support was sufficient (after adjustments) and that technical irregularities should be waived; accordingly the court sanctioned the 25 schemes subject to the stated condition precedent (Stock Exchange approval).